The commercial use of supersonic aircraft has been severely restricted because of the problem of sonic boom and the reluctance of the general public and federal regulators to tolerate sonic boom in heavily populated areas. For this reason, commercial aircraft such as the Concord are not permitted to fly at supersonic speed over the United States. It has also been recognized that from an efficiency standpoint, the degradation of energy through dissipative shock mechanisms reduces the lift/drag ratio of supersonic aircraft to the order of seven (7), as compared with values in excess of twenty (20) for subsonic aircraft. Accordingly, the cost of operating supersonic aircraft which generate dissipative shocks is marginal and poses a severe limitation on supersonic operations.
Aircraft designers have made numerous attempts to overcome the problems which are associated with sonic boom. For example, the United States patents of Rethorst, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,168,044 and 3,314,629, disclose an energy conserving supersonic aircraft and a shock-less supersonic aircraft, respectively. The United States patents of Griffith, U.S. Pat. No. 2,840,325, and of Ebner, U.S. Pat. No. 3,794,274, also disclose attempts to overcome the aforementioned problems. However, to date, there has been no known commercially-acceptable solution to the problems associated with sonic boom.
It is now believed that an aircraft in accordance with the present invention can be flown at Mach 3 or greater without generating an objectionable sonic boom, operated more efficiently than prior art designs and meet the other requirements of the commercial market.